There have been some great articles, one I think is called "You are being lied to about pirates," that explain the history of these pirates and why they are supported by the people.

Apparantly, there are people in Somalia, whether or not we call them pirates or something else, who have guarded their waters from people fishing and dumping waste illegally. European countries have been the main culprit, even dumping nuclear waste (which washed ashore during the tsunami, leading to illness and death). Some of these people (the proto-pirates) began actually taking bribes to allow dumping and fishing. Others turned to outright piracy.

The articles dont excuse illegal actions, and differentiate between the pirates and "somalia coast guard"

This is true, but a functioning government would do a much better job enforcing maritime law than vigilantes with financial interests as well.

What's the difference between a functioning government and vigilantes with financial interests?

Rule of law, mainly. Who holds vigilantes to account? Do they serve the populace, or just themselves?

There have been some great articles, one I think is called "You are being lied to about pirates," that explain the history of these pirates and why they are supported by the people.

Apparantly, there are people in Somalia, whether or not we call them pirates or something else, who have guarded their waters from people fishing and dumping waste illegally. European countries have been the main culprit, even dumping nuclear waste (which washed ashore during the tsunami, leading to illness and death). Some of these people (the proto-pirates) began actually taking bribes to allow dumping and fishing. Others turned to outright piracy.

The articles dont excuse illegal actions, and differentiate between the pirates and "somalia coast guard"

This is true, but a functioning government would do a much better job enforcing maritime law than vigilantes with financial interests as well.

What's the difference between a functioning government and vigilantes with financial interests?

Rule of law, mainly. Who holds vigilantes to account? Do they serve the populace, or just themselves?

There are functioning governments in developing countries that cannot be held to account by the populace, no?

There have been some great articles, one I think is called "You are being lied to about pirates," that explain the history of these pirates and why they are supported by the people.

Apparantly, there are people in Somalia, whether or not we call them pirates or something else, who have guarded their waters from people fishing and dumping waste illegally. European countries have been the main culprit, even dumping nuclear waste (which washed ashore during the tsunami, leading to illness and death). Some of these people (the proto-pirates) began actually taking bribes to allow dumping and fishing. Others turned to outright piracy.

The articles dont excuse illegal actions, and differentiate between the pirates and "somalia coast guard"

This is true, but a functioning government would do a much better job enforcing maritime law than vigilantes with financial interests as well.

What's the difference between a functioning government and vigilantes with financial interests?

Rule of law, mainly. Who holds vigilantes to account? Do they serve the populace, or just themselves?

There are functioning governments in developing countries that cannot be held to account by the populace, no?

Well, I suppose how one would answer that depends on how one defines 'functioning', and to what extent we are talking about 'holding a government to account'. Do you have any specific examples in mind?

Let's take Saudi Arabia as an example. Functioning government? I'd say so. Accountable to its people? Not really, unless you count the possibility of violent overthrow.

Good example. Maybe one could make the argument that, because the interests of the populace are being served by the government, the issue of accountability has not been raised, and hence, not been tested. However, I'm not too persuaded by that argument, since obviously there are fundamental human rights violations (particularly women's rights) that undeniably are counter to the interests of some percentage of the society.

Personally, I think the key issue as to whether or not a government is functioning is whether or not it has a monopoly or near monopoly on the use of violence within its own territory. You could say that the governments of many developing countries are just groups of thugs trying to get rich, but that doesn't necessarily lead to the problems of piracy that we've seen in Somalia.

The problem is that there's simply not one group of thugs who has enough power to police all the other groups of thugs.

Personally, I think the key issue as to whether or not a government is functioning is whether or not it has a monopoly or near monopoly on the use of violence within its own territory. You could say that the governments of many developing countries are just groups of thugs trying to get rich, but that doesn't necessarily lead to the problems of piracy that we've seen in Somalia.

The problem is that there's simply not one group of thugs who has enough power to police all the other groups of thugs.

Well certainly, that is what I was alluding to when I said that lack of rule of law is the chief reason for believing that there is no functioning government. I kind of added a statement about them serving their own interests as well, but the real issue is a lack of the rule of law.

Personally, I think the key issue as to whether or not a government is functioning is whether or not it has a monopoly or near monopoly on the use of violence within its own territory. You could say that the governments of many developing countries are just groups of thugs trying to get rich, but that doesn't necessarily lead to the problems of piracy that we've seen in Somalia.

The problem is that there's simply not one group of thugs who has enough power to police all the other groups of thugs.

Well certainly, that is what I was alluding to when I said that lack of rule of law is the chief reason for believing that there is no functioning government. I kind of added a statement about them serving their own interests as well, but the real issue is a lack of the rule of law.

But going back the Saudi example, would you say that there is rule of law there? I'd say no.

Personally, I think the key issue as to whether or not a government is functioning is whether or not it has a monopoly or near monopoly on the use of violence within its own territory. You could say that the governments of many developing countries are just groups of thugs trying to get rich, but that doesn't necessarily lead to the problems of piracy that we've seen in Somalia.

The problem is that there's simply not one group of thugs who has enough power to police all the other groups of thugs.

Well certainly, that is what I was alluding to when I said that lack of rule of law is the chief reason for believing that there is no functioning government. I kind of added a statement about them serving their own interests as well, but the real issue is a lack of the rule of law.

But going back the Saudi example, would you say that there is rule of law there? I'd say no.

I would say there absolutely is rule of law in Saudi Arabia. Is their legal system just? Probably not. There is definitely rule of law, though.